Лингвофорум

Langobards have long beards....

Langobardi habent longas barbas... It sounds like the beginning of a rhyme.

Цитата: Искандер от августа 25, 2011, 14:19
Langobards have long beards....

Or rather they had..

Цитата: Квас от августа 25, 2011, 14:23
Langobardi habent longas barbas... It sounds like the beginning of a rhyme.

Sounds just great) So many consonants) It reminds me somewhat Deutch

Цитата: Валер от августа 25, 2011, 14:28

Цитата: Квас от августа 25, 2011, 14:23Langobardi habent longas barbas... It sounds like the beginning of a rhyme.

Sounds just great) So many consonants) It reminds me somewhat Deutch

Not so great for me. It's rather inelegant. It would be more classic to say langobardis longæ sunt barbæ (I'm in a mood for old-style Latin spelling).

Цитата: Квас от августа 25, 2011, 14:31

Цитата: Валер от августа 25, 2011, 14:28

Цитата: Квас от августа 25, 2011, 14:23Langobardi habent longas barbas... It sounds like the beginning of a rhyme.

Sounds just great) So many consonants) It reminds me somewhat Deutch

Not so great for me. It's rather inelegant. It would be more classic to say langobardis longæ sunt barbæ (I'm in a mood for old-style Latin spelling).

Hm..but is it not a question of different construction here rather than that of spelling? And as for spelling.. I like your mood)

Цитата: Валер от августа 25, 2011, 14:46
Hm..but is it not a question of different construction here rather than that of spelling? And as for spelling.. I like your mood)

Yes, it is. As for spelling, my remark just explains the ligature æ that is out of use nowadays.

In fact, old spelling impressed me not with its ligatures, but with the the idea behind its diacritics. The latter is intended to enable one to grasp the grammatical structure from the first glance. Take for example the following sentence from Erasmus:

Vitâ famâque incolumi, periit pecunia. With the life and the reputation intact, the money perished.

Without the circumflexes one needs to trace the sentence up to the third word so as to realise that vita and fama are in the ablative case.

Of course, the textbook-style orthography

Vītā fāmāque incolumī, periit pecūnia.

effectively deals with the problem, yet the phonetic information is excessive even for an intermediate student, and lots of macrons make the text look rather ugly, don't they?

I understand that these technicalities may be of interest only for myself, but this thread is  anyway intended for English flood, doesn't it?

Цитата: Квас от августа 25, 2011, 20:23

Цитата: Валер от августа 25, 2011, 14:46
Hm..but is it not a question of different construction here rather than that of spelling? And as for spelling.. I like your mood)

Yes, it is. As for spelling, my remark just explains the ligature æ that is out of use nowadays.

In fact, old spelling impressed me not with its ligatures, but with the the idea behind its diacritics. The latter is intended to enable one to grasp the grammatical structure from the first glance.

That's it, from the first glance, I like the idea too, though  diacritics here is something I know so little of)

Цитата: Валер от августа 25, 2011, 20:56
That's it, from the first glance, I like the idea too, though  diacritics here is something I know so little of)

Neither do I. What's more, the use of diacritics varied in time. The circumflex in the ablative ending was the most constant feature.

If you are interested, you can learn a little more from my blog post (yes, I do have a blog! ).

Цитата: Квас от августа 25, 2011, 21:15
I do have

emphatic, or something bad?

Цитата: Искандер от августа 25, 2011, 21:25

Цитата: Квас от августа 25, 2011, 21:15I do have

emphatic, or something bad?

.
Emphatic. For a long time I thought I had nothing to tell the world, but finally I decided that the world didn't need read my blog.

Цитата: Квас от августа 25, 2011, 21:28

Цитата: Искандер от августа 25, 2011, 21:25

Цитата: Квас от августа 25, 2011, 21:15I do have

emphatic, or something bad?

.
Emphatic. For a long time I thought I had nothing to tell the world, but finally I decided that the world didn't need read my blog.

Why сonceal your thoughts from this world as Iskander says)

Цитата: Квас от августа 25, 2011, 21:28
didn't need __ read my blog.

 

Цитата: Чайник777 от августа 25, 2011, 22:27

Цитата: Квас от августа 25, 2011, 21:28didn't need __ read my blog.

 

As a modal verb 'needn't' takes the infinitive without to. I wasn't sure about its past tence, so I just googled 'didn't need read' and got a good deal of results.

Why not "don't need read___ my..."   ???

The verb in the main clause was in the past tence: 'decided'. Else it would be 'needn't read', and the grammar is OK.

I could write 'was not obliged to': a bit more bookish, but again the grammar is OK.

Цитата: Квас от августа 25, 2011, 22:32
As a modal verb 'needn't' takes the infinitive without to. I wasn't sure about its past tence, so I just googled 'didn't need read' and got a good deal of results.

Well, some of these results do not apply here, e.g. sentences like "He clearly could have sold you something you didn't need. Read your svc guide in your glove box manual for appropriate svc intervals" or "They didn't need (...) Read More (...)"

Цитата: Чайник777 от августа 25, 2011, 22:41
Well, some of these results do not apply here

I would be surprised if they all did. A couple examples from native speakers would suffice (a single instance in a book would be even better). The only drawback of the Google method is that it doesn't distinguish between natives and non-natives.

I don't feel like plunging into a grammar reference right now. Perhaps later...

I'm not a big fan of linguistic prescription, but let's have a look at a note on usage from my dictionary:

ЦитироватьUsage Note: Depending on the sense, the verb need behaves sometimes like an auxiliary verb (such as can or may) and sometimes like a main verb (such as want or try). When used as a main verb, need agrees with its subject, takes to before the verb following it, and combines with do in questions, negations, and certain other constructions: He needs to go. Does he need to go so soon? He doesn't need to go. When used as an auxiliary verb, need does not agree with its subject, does not take to before the verb following it, and does not combine with do: He needn't go. Need he go so soon? The auxiliary forms of need are used primarily in present-tense questions, negations, and conditional clauses. Unlike can and may, auxiliary need has no form for the past tense like could and might.

(emphasis mine)

Thanks, Чайник777. You confirm my worst suspicions. I wonder how they express lack of necessity in the past.

Цитата: Квас от августа 25, 2011, 21:28

Цитата: Искандер от августа 25, 2011, 21:25

Цитата: Квас от августа 25, 2011, 21:15I do have

emphatic, or something bad?

.
Emphatic. For a long time I thought I had nothing to tell the world, but finally I decided that the world didn't need to read my blog.

fyp

Let it be decisive.

Цитата: iopq от августа 25, 2011, 23:16
fyp

is the f a t or the y a nothing?

Цитата: Квас от августа 25, 2011, 22:48
I wonder how they express lack of necessity in the past.

If you mean lack of necessity using auxiliary 'need', then 'needn't' with the perfect infinitive (without 'to'). But the meaning is different.

1.   "the world didn't need to read my blog" : there was no necessity and it may or may not have happened
2.   "the world needn't have read my blog" : there was no necessity, but it did happen

Alternatively, you can use 'need' as a nominal:

3.   "there was no need for the world to read my blog"

Or you can use the past tense of 'have to':

4.   "the world didn't have to read my blog"

Thanks, Уттыԓьын. I think I would have chosen #3 or #4. I guess #2 shouldn't be used in a subordinate clause if the verb of the main clause is in a past tence.